Imperials or Stormcloaks, what one?

[DrunkenMage]

Yes, but you would only kick out Elenwen when you are pro Stormcloaks, and if you are pro stormcloak you don't pay for war crimes or give any holds up after dawnstar. I just don't see anyone giving up a hold for Elenwen.

They're both not good sides in terms of making peace, Stormcloaks and Imperials just aren't meant to get along. The Truce shows that well. They share one thing in common, stubborn pride, rather lose the war than admit to the mistake. Tullius and Ulfric are alike in that aspect.

There is no 'good' side, both have their pro and con, just depends on what you believe. United Empire against a United Aldmeri Dominion or Stormcloak against Dominion, they both might lose the war, though the events in Skyrim seem to show the Third Empire losing power and starting to decay, could be a good thing or a bad thing. Empires rise and fall in Tamriel, Imperials will always make a new Empire, the Fourth Empire, the Fifth etc. They will always become great and then decline, maybe the Nords will establish their Second Empire of the Nords, or what not.

I wouldn't mind seeing a Fourth Empire, the Empires only really last an Era before they decline. Maybe provinces will rule themselves once more and there won't be an Emperor, I hope the next game will give some good insight on what is going on, one thing we know for certain both sides are preparing for war with the Aldmeri Dominion.

I myself am a fan of the Empire, the Imperials are the most non threatening race of all Tamriel, yet every other race bends their knee to them at some point in time. The Imperials started out as slaves, look how far they have come, from slaves to rulers of Tamriel.

 

[Captain Nagisus]

I'd just like to pop in and remind you that, in the real world, racism very rarely has reasons. Well, justifiable ones. Ta ta.

 

[The Laoch]

I'd just like to pop in and remind you that, in the real world, racism very rarely has reasons. Well, justifiable ones. Ta ta.

Racism is a defense mechanism, for instance very few Muslims are terrorists, but many Americans would feel safer in a airplane full of whites than a airplane filled with Muslims. Even though the odds are the Muslims are not terrorists we would feel safer even if that is racist. I would say the empire is a lot less racist than the Stormcloaks, but I would guess there is still racism among the ranks.

 

[Captain Nagisus]

Racism is a defense mechanism, for instance very few Muslims are terrorists, but many Americans would feel safer in a airplane full of whites than a airplane filled with Muslims. Even though the odds are the Muslims are not terrorists we would feel safer even if that is racist. I would say the empire is a lot less racist than the Stormcloaks, but I would guess there is still racism among the ranks.

That's about the one slightly good, mediocre reason. Like how Argonians hate Dunmer, because Dunmer raided Black Marsh for slaves for eras.

 

[Brittani]

I favor the Stormcloaks because I like the idea of an independent land. I think the Empire has been too strict for my liking as well, and I have always been the rebellious type so siding with the stormcloaks suits my personality. I like to be different. The reason I started with the stormcloaks in the beginning, on my first character, was simply because I thought that they were being jerks. What a reason, right? Well I didn't know much about the game when I started playing as I had not played any of the other games in TES series. Even now I am not sure I have what would be considered good reasoning to others, but it's good enough for me.

 

[The Laoch]

That's about the one slightly good, mediocre reason. Like how Argonians hate Dunmer, because Dunmer raided Black Marsh for slaves for eras.

Yes, of course racism isn't a good thing as always, but it does have a use from time to time. It can be used as a foot-in-the-door phenomena.

 

[Mr1cammando]

inb4raijin

 

[High King of Skyrim]

I'm stormcloaks all the way. I find the Thalmor and High Elves to be arrogant and untrustworthy. Historically it has always been elves that have initiated the violence towards mankind. No matter what side you follow, this simply cannot be denied. Not to mention the fact Nords are being kidnapped and tortured just for believing in their own god. Then there's the white gold concordat, what rubbish. I'm glad the true sons and daughters of Skyrim have finally decided that enough is enough. Ulfric may not be the best leader in many eyes, but who else will stand up to the witch elves and take back the homeland. Not any Nord I've encountered supports the banning of Talos worship and that includes Nord Legionares! So let the Imperials of Cyrodil live by the white gold concordat if they choose, let them live under Thalmor oppression if they choose. Just don't take away their right to choose. Go Stormcloaks, let the Thalmor taste good old Nord steel. Onwards to freedom!

 

[The Laoch]

I'm stormcloaks all the way. I find the Thalmor and High Elves to be arrogant and untrustworthy. Historically it has always been elves that have initiated the violence towards mankind. No matter what side you follow, this simply cannot be denied. Not to mention the fact Nords are being kidnapped and tortured just for believing in their own god. Then there's the white gold concordat, what rubbish. I'm glad the true sons and daughters of Skyrim have finally decided that enough is enough. Ulfric may not be the best leader in many eyes, but who else will stand up to the witch elves and take back the homeland. Not any Nord I've encountered supports the banning of Talos worship and that includes Nord Legionares! So let the Imperials of Cyrodil live by the white gold concordat if they choose, let them live under Thalmor oppression if they choose. Just don't take away their right to choose. Go Stormcloaks, let the Thalmor taste good old Nord steel. Onwards to freedom!

You claim that Ulfric is fighting oppression, but he is oppressing dark elves and argionians in his own city. Just a thought, I have played both sides and even though the Stormcloaks are fun, they are a bit hypocritical.

 

[Captain Nagisus]

You have to remember, these people have the minds of medieval Englishmen. Secularism isn't a thing. The only government in Skyrim I can think of without thinking of a god is the Redguards, but who the wholly holy holey guacamole frijoles do they even WORSHIP? Sure, the Empire is the most cosmopolitan government, but the people are still gonna be racist from time to time. Imagine you're in 14th century England. A bunch of peasants are burning a Jew. As a modern man, your first reaction would be to think "HOLY HELL THAT'S ATROCIOUS!" But if you said "Stop burning that guy!" to the peasants, they'd throw you on the fire. And if you were really a medieval peasant, you'd grab a cross and start yelling medieval insults at him like a racist eff-wit. The only difference is, no feudalism.

Just a thought for RPers.

 

[Ozan]

Ah, Ozan sees the Stormcloak types rally. The Nord would criticize Khajiit if he did not display his own colors as well.

Perhaps when confronted with Racism, one could ignore it and continue good anyways so the Nord rethinks his words. If Khajiit helps the Nord, why would the Nord continue to hate Khajiit? The Nord is many things. Ungrateful is not one of them.

Then again, the Nord restricts Khajiit... not really setting Khajiit on fire so... what does Ozan know?

 

[Tyer032392]

I'd imagine any Stormcloak army being pretty depleted after a war with the Empire. The people who already believed with the Stormcloaks have likely joined already. I don't imagine they would find too many new recruits. I'm thinking the Thalmor would go into Skyrim and try to steal some land out from under the Stormcloaks, maybe ransom it back to the Empire or keep it to themselves.

Referring to the Stormcloaks as an "army" is quiet laughable. The Stormcloaks are not an army, but a militia. They lack training, combat skills, a set command structure, logistics, proper officers, unit cohesion( though the Imperial's are the same way when it comes to fighting; however, according to some of the Imperial army books, they are far more organized than the Stormcloaks), extc. Now, you can try and argue that the Stormcloaks are an army and say that they have ex-Imperial legionary soldiers in the army, but not nearly enough to make it a decent fighting force to acutally take on the Empire, or the Aldermi Dominion. Let's not forget that the Stormcloaks as far as I know lack a navy which also means that they are at an even greater disadvantage because they are not only forced to march by land, but are vulnerable to naval invasions. The way I see it as, if Ulfric does free Skyrim from the Imperials, than the war with the Thalmor is going to be very tough for him unless his right-hand man Galmor puts into effect several reforms for Skyrim's military. And even if those reforms were to take place, Ulfric would not be ready for a war for several decades while the army get's supplies. The only hope that the Stormcloak army would have, would be the Dovahkiin and his/her allies.

 

[The Laoch]

Referring to the Stormcloaks as an "army" is quiet laughable. The Stormcloaks are not an army, but a militia. They lack training, combat skills, a set command structure, logistics, proper officers, unit cohesion( though the Imperial's are the same way when it comes to fighting; however, according to some of the Imperial army books, they are far more organized than the Stormcloaks), extc. Now, you can try and argue that the Stormcloaks are an army and say that they have ex-Imperial legionary soldiers in the army, but not nearly enough to make it a decent fighting force to acutally take on the Empire, or the Aldermi Dominion. Let's not forget that the Stormcloaks as far as I know lack a navy which also means that they are at an even greater disadvantage because they are not only forced to march by land, but are vulnerable to naval invasions. The way I see it as, if Ulfric does free Skyrim from the Imperials, than the war with the Thalmor is going to be very tough for him unless his right-hand man Galmor puts into effect several reforms for Skyrim's military. And even if those reforms were to take place, Ulfric would not be ready for a war for several decades while the army get's supplies. The only hope that the Stormcloak army would have, would be the Dovahkiin and his/her allies.

A lot of Stormcloaks are ex legionnaires, militias have done good in the past:
American vs Britain in the war of independents
Vietnam war ( doesn't really make the best example since the Vietnamese had high morale )
War of 1812

I could go on, but to claim a militias have done good, in fact they probably have a better track record versus armies. They have high morale and strong willpower. Armies may be trained well, but it doesn't mean they are superior.

 

[Captain Nagisus]

Also guns and supplies. Revolutionaries had tons of French supplies. Sneaky Yanks.

 

[Tyer032392]

A lot of Stormcloaks are ex legionnaires, militias have done good in the past:
American vs Britain in the war of independents
Vietnam war ( doesn't really make the best example since the Vietnamese had high morale )
War of 1812

Actually, that isn't entirely true. Using the American Revolution as an example pretty much shows you don't have much of any knowledge on the subject. Militia by right are basic farmers/ citizens who are defending their homes against a foreign army. For example, you stated America Vs Britain in both the Revolution and in the war of 1812. During the Revolution, the militia's were known to run from a fight as soon as the British regular infantry weakened them up enough for the Grenadiers to start the engagement. It is also worth noting that the British primary strategy was to close within fifty or so yards, fire, than charge. It is documented that the Colonist would flee after the first volley. This also happened during the War of 1812 in which the new United States Army could not even win a single engagement until after the war was over, and that was the Battle of New Orleans. In fact, the only branch that the Americans had during the 1812 war that had any success was the Navy.

Militia's do not have high moral as you may think. On a scale of one to ten, a militia's moral would be at 2.5 while regular infantry would be at 5, and Grenadiers at 8 and foot guards at 10. Coupled with the fact that militia had no discipline, was a disaster waiting to happen. At the end of the day, as General Thomas J "Stonewall" Jackson once said, "at the end of the day, discipline is what wins the battle". This is one reason as to why the Colonist choose to fight guerrilla tactics, as they knew the British field army was not trained for that type of warfare, and therefor they used it to their advantage.

I could go on, but to claim a militias have done good, in fact they probably have a better track record versus armies. They have high morale and strong willpower. Armies may be trained well, but it doesn't mean they are superior.

This is probably the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, granting I am majoring in Military History at my University. Militias have neither high moral or strong willpower, and that is proven through history. And country who relied on a militia has either replaced it with a standing army, or has been conquered. Militias also do not have a good track record apart from some key people who were able to get their militia disciplined enough to where they could actually do something other than running. It is the very reason of training that armies are superior to militias because not only do the armies have discipline, but they are also more than a match for any other army. The only advantage that a militia has over a standing army is it is less likely to start a civil war versus a field army, as in the Roman case.

 

[The Laoch]

Actually, that isn't entirely true. Using the American Revolution as an example pretty much shows you don't have much of any knowledge on the subject. Militia by right are basic farmers/ citizens who are defending their homes against a foreign army. For example, you stated America Vs Britain in both the Revolution and in the war of 1812. During the Revolution, the militia's were known to run from a fight as soon as the British regular infantry weakened them up enough for the Grenadiers to start the engagement. It is also worth noting that the British primary strategy was to close within fifty or so yards, fire, than charge. It is documented that the Colonist would flee after the first volley. This also happened during the War of 1812 in which the new United States Army could not even win a single engagement until after the war was over, and that was the Battle of New Orleans. In fact, the only branch that the Americans had during the 1812 war that had any success was the Navy.

Militia's do not have high moral as you may think. On a scale of one to ten, a militia's moral would be at 2.5 while regular infantry would be at 5, and Grenadiers at 8 and foot guards at 10. Coupled with the fact that militia had no discipline, was a disaster waiting to happen. At the end of the day, as General Thomas J "Stonewall" Jackson once said, "at the end of the day, discipline is what wins the battle". This is one reason as to why the Colonist choose to fight gorilla style, as they knew the British field army was not trained for that type of warfare, and therefor they used it to their advantage.


This is probably the most idiotic thing I have ever heard, granting I am majoring in Military History at my University. Militias have neither high moral or strong willpower, and that is proven through history. And country who relied on a militia has either replaced it with a standing army, or has been conquered. Militias also do not have a good track record apart from some key people who were able to get their militia disciplined enough to where they could actually do something other than running. It is the very reason of training that armies are superior to militias because not only do the armies have discipline, but they are also more than a match for any other army. The only advantage that a militia has over a standing army is it is less likely to start a civil war versus a field army, as in the Roman case.

The yanks still won?

And for the war of 1812 I meant the Canadians since they dressed as British troops as a militia, the viet cong were terrible troops ( for ever one American troop 20 were killed).
I believe the Stormcloaks have higher morale than the empire that's all I'm trying to say. the Stormcloaks do have a military structure. There is more evidence of one than against it.
I support High Rock and the Reach I am really on the empire's side I just feel the Stormcloaks need more support on this thread.

 

[The Laoch]

A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility. Some of the ways the term is used include:

A milita can be called an army.

 

[Tyer032392]

The yanks still won?

And for the war of 1812 I meant the Canadians since they dressed as British troops as a militia, the viet cong were terrible troops ( for ever one American troop 20 were killed). I believe the Stormcloaks have higher morale than the empire that's all I'm trying to say. the Stormcloaks do have a military structure. There is more evidence of one than against it. I support High Rock and the Reach I am really on the empire's side I just feel the Stormcloaks need more support on this thread.

Ok, I misunderstood you than. Well, I won't argue with you about the Colonist winning or not, as there is far to much to discuss on that other than the military portions. One thing to mention about the Canadians though, they did have as far as I know, a few regiments of British Regular Infantry which helped repel the U.S invasion.

As for the Stormcloaks, I wasn't saying that they did not have military structure, just that it is not as refined as the Empire's military, hence why I gave some of the example that they were lacking in. My primary argument was that seeing how Skyrim became its own independent Kingdom (if you sided with the Stormcloaks), they would have to spend a good portion of a few decades just to get anywhere near ready for an invasion of either the Empire or the Aldmeri Dominion. In fact, I too want to know what Ulfric has up his sleeve for both the Empire and the Aldemri Dominion.

A militia (pron.: /mɨˈlɪʃə/),[1] generally refers to an army or other fighting force that is composed of non-professional fighters; citizens of a nation or subjects of a state or government that can be called upon to enter a combat situation, as opposed to a professional force of regular soldiers or, historically, members of the fighting nobility. Some of the ways the term is used include:

A milita can be called an army.

Granted you did get the definition from Wikipedia, so I would take that with a grain of salt. While a militia can be "technically" called an army, they are usually not because of what I have stated earlier. Your best source to determine the definition of a militia is to look at the military meaning of it. However, you did give the generic meaning of it, so it really does not hold that much weight.

Edit: I am talking about the Wikipedia version of the definition not holding any weight as Wikipedia really isn't that great of a source to begin with.

 

[Mr1cammando]

Referring to the Stormcloaks as an "army" is quiet laughable. The Stormcloaks are not an army, but a militia. They lack training, combat skills, a set command structure, logistics, proper officers, unit cohesion( though the Imperial's are the same way when it comes to fighting; however, according to some of the Imperial army books, they are far more organized than the Stormcloaks), extc. Now, you can try and argue that the Stormcloaks are an army and say that they have ex-Imperial legionary soldiers in the army, but not nearly enough to make it a decent fighting force to acutally take on the Empire, or the Aldermi Dominion. Let's not forget that the Stormcloaks as far as I know lack a navy which also means that they are at an even greater disadvantage because they are not only forced to march by land, but are vulnerable to naval invasions. The way I see it as, if Ulfric does free Skyrim from the Imperials, than the war with the Thalmor is going to be very tough for him unless his right-hand man Galmor puts into effect several reforms for Skyrim's military. And even if those reforms were to take place, Ulfric would not be ready for a war for several decades while the army get's supplies. The only hope that the Stormcloak army would have, would be the Dovahkiin and his/her allies.

That was the point I was trying to get across. I've heard a lot of talk about Ulfric new nation being bullet proof. The army, or ahem, militia would be basically killed off by either remaining Imperials or the AD. I think the Dominion is much more likely to attack though, seeing as how they can corner the Empire by taking the north. It isn't like the Thalmor don't have any eyes on the subject either, they have the Embassy and Ondolmar in Markarth, and an untold amount of spies in other places, I would assume.

 

[The Laoch]

As for the Stormcloaks, I wasn't saying that they did not have military structure, just that it is not as refined as the Empire's military, hence why I gave some of the example that they were lacking in. My primary argument was that seeing how Skyrim became its own independent Kingdom (if you sided with the Stormcloaks), they would have to spend a good portion of a few decades just to get anywhere near ready for an invasion of either the Empire or the Aldmeri Dominion. In fact, I too want to know what Ulfric has up his sleeve for both the Empire and the Aldemri Dominion.

t of a source to begin with.

Yes, I feel a lot of Stormcloaks don't understand that they currently don't have the resources that the Empire has to begin a war.